September 29, 2006
TAKING A PAGE FROM GERRY STUDDS'S BOOK:
Foley Resigns From Congress Over E-Mails (DAVID ESPO and JIM KUHNHENN, 9/29/06, Associated Press)
Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., resigned from Congress on Friday, effective immediately, in the wake of questions about e-mails he wrote a former teenage male page. [...]In 2003, Foley faced questions about his sexual orientation as he prepared to run for Sen. Bob Graham's seat. At a news conference in May of that year, he said he would not comment on rumors he was gay. He later decided not to seek the Senate seat to care for his parents.
Once again we see that the difdference between Republicans and Democrats is that the GOP guys who get caught are forced out by the party. If memory serves, Congressman Studds was even re-elected. Posted by Orrin Judd at September 29, 2006 4:59 PM
Do right, and fear no man; don't write, and fear no. . .oh, what the hell!
This whole story is pretty gay.
Posted by: Lou Gots at September 29, 2006 5:37 PMHe needs to be in jail for a long time. Sickening.
Posted by: JAB at September 29, 2006 8:57 PMOJ:
If McGreevey had been more "competent", he wouldn't have quit, either.
Posted by: ratbert at September 29, 2006 9:03 PMDon't forget Barney Frank.
But you are right. As with Cunningham and Ney (the guy in Ohio), having the GOP willing to police its own should be considered a positive. The standards of behavior may not be very high or vigorously enforced, but unlike the Dems, there are at least standards to enforce.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at September 29, 2006 9:24 PMWell, there is Bob Torecelli -- the Democrats will force one of their own out, if there's an election immanent and the candidate is perceived as having no chance of winning. That's why the Bob Menendez death pool is going on right now.
Posted by: John at September 30, 2006 12:18 AMAt the least he didn't hold a press conference and say, "I'm just a gay American". In any event, the whole thing is a mess. What an idiot, he deserves all this for making it so public. That isn't a good example of using his judgment.
Posted by: pchuck at September 30, 2006 8:11 AMYour memory serves correctly.
FWIW, a Republican congressman named Crane who was caught at the same time was defeated. I have never seen a complete account, but as I recall Studds had been approaching pages -- some of them younger than the age of consent -- for years, but Crane was involved once with an 18-year-old woman. Crane's Republican district did not find his apparently heartfelt apology acceptable; Studds' Democratic district had no problem with his reluctant apology.
I believe DC never even considered prosecuting Studds.
(Minor point of confusion. There were two Crane brothers in Congress at the time, one representing an Illinois district and one representing an Indiana district. I think the one that got in trouble was the one from Illinois.)
Posted by: Jim Miller at September 30, 2006 8:56 AMRepublican Phil, from IL, served in Congress for 36 years. Brother Dan, from IN, for 6 years. Dan had a relationship with an under-age female congressional page, apologized, and was defeated for re-election in 1984.
Democrat Gerry Studds, though involved with an under-age male page, refused to apologize, and was re-elected five times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Page_sex_scandal
Posted by: George at September 30, 2006 10:49 AMYou are right that the Crane who got in trouble was from Indiana. But the Wikipedia article is, I am almost certain, misleading. There were solid reports in -- as I recall -- the Washington Post -- that Studds had approached several male pages, at least one or two of them below the age of consent (16 at that time in DC, again, according to my recollection).
In short, what Crane did was legal, if immoral; what Studds was doing was, in some cases, illegal as well as immoral
Posted by: Jim Miller at September 30, 2006 2:02 PMApparently there is a kerfuffle brewing over when Hastert and John Boehner knew Foley was rotten, and why nothing was done if they were aware of the e-mails and the page back in April.
Posted by: jim hamlen at October 1, 2006 1:23 AMre: A New Page for Foley
The guy should still be investigated and/or prosecuted. I'm originally from Mass. and the fact that Studds was re-elected is shameful. The issue isn't that Foley is homosexual, it's that he's a pedophile. All he'll likely do is to turn over a new page !!
Posted by: Big Al at October 1, 2006 7:25 AMThere are a few differences between Foley & Studds. To me the comment above about judgement is the most pressing. I'm a fairly conservative Republican. Couldnt stand Studds' politics & think that fishing among the pages was unethical, but Foley's was to repeadly get crude with an un-interested/unwilling individual. Foley appeared to be pressuring at least one of them. Studds' "victim" (at least one I remember) spoke publically to the essence of "MYOB, folks."
Would make more sense to remove the minors from the "page" system and make them HIRE young adults. Since our congress already exempts itself from suits on sexual harrassment, etc, they can still behave like jackasses, just not as readily to connected, ambitious & hopefully idealistic youth.
Posted by: Robert W at October 2, 2006 6:10 AMThe disgraced senior senator from MA leaves them to bloat in the salt water while he gets a good night sleep.....Then he reports it in the morning....good grief
Posted by: Greg at October 5, 2006 3:00 PMThe disgraced senior senator from MA leaves them to bloat in the salt water while he gets a good night sleep.....Then he reports it in the morning....good grief
Posted by: Greg at October 5, 2006 3:01 PM